A couple of days ago, missus had a missed call on her mobile, which
left caller ID and she called it back. It rang for a while, then
connected to an answerphone.

Yesterday, I had the same. Both our numbers are very similar (only
last 4 digits are different) - though one is O2 the other T-Mobile.

It would appear the number is not included in the free minute bundle
and chargeable. O2 said it was a premium rate number - so I assume
this is some arsehole scam to get you to ring a premium rate number
for no reason whatsoever - and effectively pay them for the
priviledge!

guv wrote:
> A couple of days ago, missus had a missed call on her mobile, which
> left caller ID and she called it back. It rang for a while, then
> connected to an answerphone.
>
> Yesterday, I had the same. Both our numbers are very similar (only
> last 4 digits are different) - though one is O2 the other T-Mobile.
>
> It would appear the number is not included in the free minute bundle
> and chargeable. O2 said it was a premium rate number - so I assume
> this is some arsehole scam to get you to ring a premium rate number
> for no reason whatsoever - and effectively pay them for the
> priviledge!

Definition of Personal Numbering1.3 Personal Numbers enable end users to
be called, using a single telephone number, and toreceive those calls,
via their Personal Numbering Service Provider (PNSP), at virtually
anytelephone number, including mobile numbers.1.4 Personal Numbers are
individually allocated by a PNSP to an end user, but are notthemselves
linked to a network.1.5 A Personal Number is independent of a
terminating network operator. It is thatindependence which enables end
users to control the delivery of incoming calls so that theycan be
reached anywhere, irrespective of location. Personal Numbers may be
allocated on a temporary basis (eg to patients in hospital) or on a
long-term basis.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:50:17 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" wrote:
>guv wrote:
>> A couple of days ago, missus had a missed call on her mobile, which
>> left caller ID and she called it back. It rang for a while, then
>> connected to an answerphone.
>>
>> Yesterday, I had the same. Both our numbers are very similar (only
>> last 4 digits are different) - though one is O2 the other T-Mobile.
>>
>> It would appear the number is not included in the free minute bundle
>> and chargeable. O2 said it was a premium rate number - so I assume
>> this is some arsehole scam to get you to ring a premium rate number
>> for no reason whatsoever - and effectively pay them for the
>> priviledge!
>
>070 numbers are personal / find me anywhere numbers.

guv presented the following explanation :
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:50:17 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
> wrote:
>
>> guv wrote:
>>> A couple of days ago, missus had a missed call on her mobile, which
>>> left caller ID and she called it back. It rang for a while, then
>>> connected to an answerphone.
>>>
>>> Yesterday, I had the same. Both our numbers are very similar (only
>>> last 4 digits are different) - though one is O2 the other T-Mobile.
>>>
>>> It would appear the number is not included in the free minute bundle
>>> and chargeable. O2 said it was a premium rate number - so I assume
>>> this is some arsehole scam to get you to ring a premium rate number
>>> for no reason whatsoever - and effectively pay them for the
>>> priviledge!
>>
>> 070 numbers are personal / find me anywhere numbers.
>
> OK - cheers for that! Must have been a strange coincidence1

No, definitely a scam.

Company A provides company B with an 070XX number.

Company B calls you & presents their 070XX number & hang up before you
can answer. Curiosity causes you to call the number back - a casual
glance at the number makes you think it's a mobile number.

Company A owns company B, so the scammers make a profit on the 37ppm
call charge.

They use this convoluted setup as the user of the 070XX number (Company is not allowed to share revenue

"guv" wrote in message
news:uhtot2h00u04dmobtb8pd05qa05vq2n9cu@4ax.com...
> so I assume
> this is some arsehole scam to get you to ring a premium rate number
> for no reason whatsoever - and effectively pay them for the
> priviledge!

"Jono" wrote in message
news:mn.aca57d72867f0e5b.48968@blueyonder.invalid...
> guv presented the following explanation :
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:50:17 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> guv wrote:
>>>> A couple of days ago, missus had a missed call on her mobile, which
>>>> left caller ID and she called it back. It rang for a while, then
>>>> connected to an answerphone.
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday, I had the same. Both our numbers are very similar (only
>>>> last 4 digits are different) - though one is O2 the other T-Mobile.
>>>>
>>>> It would appear the number is not included in the free minute bundle
>>>> and chargeable. O2 said it was a premium rate number - so I assume
>>>> this is some arsehole scam to get you to ring a premium rate number
>>>> for no reason whatsoever - and effectively pay them for the
>>>> priviledge!
>>>
>>> 070 numbers are personal / find me anywhere numbers.
>>
>> OK - cheers for that! Must have been a strange coincidence1
>
> No, definitely a scam.
>
> Company A provides company B with an 070XX number.
>
> Company B calls you & presents their 070XX number & hang up before you can
> answer. Curiosity causes you to call the number back - a casual glance at
> the number makes you think it's a mobile number.
>
> Company A owns company B, so the scammers make a profit on the 37ppm call
> charge.
>
> They use this convoluted setup as the user of the 070XX number (Company
> is not allowed to share revenue

It's even worse than that. The "follow me" personal number can route to a
premium rate number. I was stupidly stung by this and ended up paying £4 for
1 call. The crazy thing about the scam is that the caller pays for the
effectively diverted part of the call.

Gareth presented the following explanation :
>
> It's even worse than that. The "follow me" personal number can route to a
> premium rate number. I was stupidly stung by this and ended up paying £4 for
> 1 call. The crazy thing about the scam is that the caller pays for the
> effectively diverted part of the call.
>
> Gareth.

"Jono" wrote in message
news:mn.b44c7d7245a455d0.67798@blueyonder.invalid...
>> It's even worse than that. The "follow me" personal number can route to a
>> premium rate number. I was stupidly stung by this and ended up paying £4
>> for 1 call. The crazy thing about the scam is that the caller pays for
>> the effectively diverted part of the call.
>>
> I don't believe that!

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
news:memo.20070222221920.2120A@admin.vlaad.co.uk...
> In article <45ddde3a$0$32021$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>,
> hotmail.com@dgareth.spm (Gareth) wrote:
>
>> The crazy thing about the scam is that the caller pays for the
>> effectively diverted part of the call.
>
> Only in the sense that you pay the rate (max 50p a minute) for the 070
> leg.

No - if the call diverts to a premium rate line you can end up paying huge
amounts. Whever or not people "believe it" it bloody well happens - I have
clear bill evidence of being charged when someone using one of my phones
fell foul of the scan (3 calls lasting less than 30 seconds each ended up
costing nearly £8). A 1 minute ringing tone emulated call can easily cost a
relatively large amount of money (£2 pounds for a few seconds connection)
with a mobile phone.

I complained to Ofcom (who took the complaint seriously) when one of my
phones fell foul of the scam (it cost about £4 for 1 call and more in
total). Can I suggest that other people also complain to Ofcom. This really
is a nasty scam with *huge* income generating potential. It's odd that
people are minimising the impact of the scam - especially when there's clear
evidence that premium rate style charges can be levied.

Dear Mr X

Possible 070 - Numbers Scam

Thank you for drawing this matter to Ofcom's attention.

We will look into this matter further and take action if we find that the
firm in question has acted in breach of the General Conditions of
Entitlement.

As a result of sections 96 and 97 of the Act, Ofcom now has the power to
impose financial penalties against firms that breach the General Conditions
of Entitlement.

"Jono" wrote in message
news:mn.b44c7d7245a455d0.67798@blueyonder.invalid...
> Gareth presented the following explanation :
>
>>
>> It's even worse than that. The "follow me" personal number can route to a
>> premium rate number. I was stupidly stung by this and ended up paying £4
>> for 1 call. The crazy thing about the scam is that the caller pays for
>> the effectively diverted part of the call.
>>
>> Gareth.
>
> I don't believe that!

Nor did I. Believe me it's true. Quite how this situation has been allowed
to arise is however unbelievable - it's actually a bloody scandal when you
consider the massive income generating potential of this scam.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:00:01 -0000, "J B" wrote:
>"guv" wrote in message
>news:uhtot2h00u04dmobtb8pd05qa05vq2n9cu@4ax.com...
>
>> so I assume
>> this is some arsehole scam to get you to ring a premium rate number
>> for no reason whatsoever - and effectively pay them for the
>> priviledge!
>
>Then you ***-u-me right!!!
>
>:-)

Luckily, I didnt get caught twice! (Actually I didnt get caught the
first time - the missus did!)

In article <45df561b$0$28978$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,hotmail.com@dgareth.spm (Gareth) wrote:
> No - if the call diverts to a premium rate line you can end up
> paying huge amounts. Whever or not people "believe it" it bloody
> well happens - I have clear bill evidence of being charged when
> someone using one of my phones fell foul of the scan (3 calls
> lasting less than 30 seconds each ended up costing nearly £8). A 1
> minute ringing tone emulated call can easily cost a relatively
> large amount of money (£2 pounds for a few seconds connection) with
> a mobile phone.

You ar either incorrect or deliberately trying to mislead.

I favour the latter.

It is not physically possible for the caller to be billed for the
diversion leg of a diverted call. You pay the rate for the number.

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
news:memo.20070224032305.2028A@admin.vlaad.co.uk...
> In article <45df561b$0$28978$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
> hotmail.com@dgareth.spm (Gareth) wrote:
>
>> No - if the call diverts to a premium rate line you can end up
>> paying huge amounts. Whever or not people "believe it" it bloody
>> well happens - I have clear bill evidence of being charged when
>> someone using one of my phones fell foul of the scan (3 calls
>> lasting less than 30 seconds each ended up costing nearly £8). A 1
>> minute ringing tone emulated call can easily cost a relatively
>> large amount of money (£2 pounds for a few seconds connection) with
>> a mobile phone.
>
> You ar either incorrect or deliberately trying to mislead.
>
> I favour the latter.

An alternative explanation for the levying of premium style charges for
short calls to 070 numbers might have provided an alternative to your binary
logic. Perhaps that solution is beyond you.

In the meantime I would simply warn people not to respond to 070 missed
calls and certainly not via a mobile phone.

After serious thinking Gareth wrote :
> "Paul Cummins" wrote in message
> news:memo.20070224032305.2028A@admin.vlaad.co.uk...
>> In article <45df561b$0$28978$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
>> hotmail.com@dgareth.spm (Gareth) wrote:
>>
>>> No - if the call diverts to a premium rate line you can end up
>>> paying huge amounts. Whever or not people "believe it" it bloody
>>> well happens - I have clear bill evidence of being charged when
>>> someone using one of my phones fell foul of the scan (3 calls
>>> lasting less than 30 seconds each ended up costing nearly £8). A 1
>>> minute ringing tone emulated call can easily cost a relatively
>>> large amount of money (£2 pounds for a few seconds connection) with
>>> a mobile phone.
>>
>> You ar either incorrect or deliberately trying to mislead.
>>
>> I favour the latter.
>
> An alternative explanation for the levying of premium style charges for short
> calls to 070 numbers might have provided an alternative to your binary logic.
> Perhaps that solution is beyond you.

Hmm. Your arrangement for calling any number is with whoever bills you
for calls you have made (reverse charge calls excepted). Your service
provider will bill you based on the DIALLED number - nothing else.
> In the meantime I would simply warn people not to respond to 070 missed calls
> and certainly not via a mobile phone.

"Gareth" wrote in message
news:45df561b$0$28978$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> No - if the call diverts to a premium rate line you can end up paying huge
> amounts. Whever or not people "believe it" it bloody well happens

In article <45dff45f$0$32023$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>,hotmail.com@dgareth.spm (Gareth) wrote:
> An alternative explanation for the levying of premium style charges
> for short calls to 070 numbers might have provided an alternative
> to your binary logic.

Your phone bill is based simply on the rate charged for the number
dialled.

There is NO WAY for you to be charged a premium-rate number charge for
dialing an 070 number.

In article <45df561b$0$28978$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,hotmail.com@dgareth.spm (Gareth) wrote:
> > Only in the sense that you pay the rate (max 50p a minute) for
> > the 070
> > leg.
>
> No - if the call diverts to a premium rate line you can end up
> paying huge amounts.

an 070 number can't be diverted to an 09 number. It's not permitted
under either OFCOM or ICSTIS rules.

> A couple of days ago, missus had a missed call on her mobile, which
> left caller ID and she called it back. It rang for a while, then
> connected to an answer phone.
>
> Yesterday, I had the same. Both our numbers are very similar (only
> last 4 digits are different) - though one is O2 the other T-Mobile.

Gentlemen,

Not all 0704 calls are an outright scam. Patient Line. That's the phones
beside the beds in hospital, they use 0704. I have a relative in hospital
right now that I have to phone.

Yes it's a bit of a scam as I have to pay:-

39p off peak per min

49p peak per min

Call charges soon run up if you don't watch.

Phone in the day and its £5.00 for 10 min. opps!

One of the problems with this system is the keep you on the phone for 1 min
12seconds before the bedside phone rings, thereby racking up the charges.

"Paul Cummins" wrote in
message news:memo.20070224143911.988D@admin.vlaad.co.uk
> In article <45df561b$0$28978$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
> hotmail.com@dgareth.spm (Gareth) wrote:
>
> > > Only in the sense that you pay the rate (max 50p a
> > > minute) for the 070
> > > leg.
> >
> > No - if the call diverts to a premium rate line you can
> > end up paying huge amounts.
>
> an 070 number can't be diverted to an 09 number. It's not
> permitted under either OFCOM or ICSTIS rules.

Not permitted doesn't mean it can't be done. Is it
*technically/physically* possible..?

Paul Cummins pretended :
> In article <54bst8F20561cU1@mid.individual.net>,
> ivor@despammed.invalid (Ivor Jones) wrote:
>
>> Not permitted doesn't mean it can't be done. Is it
>> *technically/physically* possible..?
>
> On the (three different) switches that I have 070 numbers on, I've
> been unable to divert the 070 number to an 09...

...and even if you did, the caller would still be charged for calling
the 070 number, not the 09 number.

In article ,nothanks@blueyonder.invalid (Jono) wrote:
> >
> > On the (three different) switches that I have 070 numbers on,
> > I've been unable to divert the 070 number to an 09...
>
> ..and even if you did, the caller would still be charged for
> calling the 070 number, not the 09 number.

Paul Cummins pretended :
> In article ,
> nothanks@blueyonder.invalid (Jono) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On the (three different) switches that I have 070 numbers on,
>>> I've been unable to divert the 070 number to an 09...
>>
>> ..and even if you did, the caller would still be charged for
>> calling the 070 number, not the 09 number.
>
> Irrelevant, but true.

Not to the original point that someone made - they claimed they'd rung
an 070 number which had been forwarded to a premium rate number & had
had those premium charges passed on.

Guys,
people are using 0704 numbers to con.
Just had a mobile phone bill way higher & upon examination i found them to be calls i made in response to private car ads on gumtree. They kept me interested by firstly placing an ad for a car that seemed cheap, secondly spoke at length about their "car" & thirdly when i asked to view their car it wasn't available today, still getting mot, valeters etc so please call back tomorrow, thus making another call.
I thought 07 numbers were used exclusivly for mobile numbers & as i get a huge number of inclusive minutes with my contract i used my mobile.
Maybe the networks should warn callers that they are making an excessivly charged call as they look like normal mobile phone numbers.
Only made two of these calls but my bill was 20% higher!!!